11/25/11 5:28 PM EST

Newt Gingrich's discussion of a program to grant some illegal immigrants "red card" permanent residency without a path to citizenship —a proposal, incidentally, well to the right of President Bush and the earlier John McCain —drew a swift pile-on from Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum, who issued him the scarlet "A" for amnesty.

But what, then, will they do with those millions of people, some of whom Gingrich would let stay? A Republican sympathetic to Gingrich's position points out that they've each gestured, one way or another, toward ... what would no doubt get called amnesty if they raised it on a debate stage. Romney, as always, is the easiest target, with a 2007 statement on "Meet the Press":

My own view is, consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who have come here illegally, and are in this country, the 12 million or so that are here illegally, should be able to sign up for permanent residency or citizenship...

Romney also said that illegal immigrants "should not be given a special pathway, a special guarantee that all of them get to stay here for the rest of their lives merely by virtue of having come here illegally," but that's far short of saying they should all go.

JOHN HARRIS: A quick 30-second rebuttal on the specific question. The fence is built, the border is under control. What do you do with 11.5 million people who are here without documents and with U.S.- born children?

BACHMANN: Well, that's right. And again, it is sequential, and it depends upon where they live, how long they have been here, if they have a criminal record. All of those things have to be taken into place.

But one thing that we do know, our immigration law worked beautifully back in the 1950s, up until the early 1960s, when people had to demonstrate that they had money in their pocket, they had no contagious diseases, they weren't a felon. They had to agree to learn to speak the English language, they had to learn American history and the Constitution. And the one thing they had to promise is that they would not become a burden on the American taxpayer. That's what we have to enforce.

Santorum, who also whacked Gingrich, was just a bit more magnanimous at that September debate, when the former Speaker was seen as a kind of tolerable, eccentric old uncle:

SANTORUM: Well, my solution is very similar to Newt Gingrich's.

Look, I'm the son of an Italian immigrant. I think immigration is one of the great things that has made this country the dynamic country that it continues to be, people who are drawn because of the ideals of this country. And so we should not have a debate talking about how we don't want people to come to this country, but we want them to come here like my grandfather and my father came here.

They made sacrifices. They came in the 1920s. There were no promises. There were no government benefits.

They came because they wanted to be free and they wanted to be good law-abiding citizens. So we have to have a program in place that sets that parameter that says, you're going to come to this country, come here according to the rules. It's a very good first step that the first thing you do here is a legal act, not an illegal act.

HARRIS: A quick followup, 30 seconds.

So there are 11 million people that — fait accompli. They're here. What do you do with them if you are able to secure the border?

SANTORUM: Well, I think we can have the discussion, that whether what we do with people, how long they've been here, whether they had other types of records. But to have that discussion right now and pull the same trick that was pulled in 1986 — we said, well, we'll promise to do this if you do that — no more. We are going to secure the border first, and that's the most important thing to do, then we'll have the discussion afterwards.

Santorum is making the case that the discussion itself is the issue, and must be postponed. But Santorum, who often leans on his time in the Senate, has to realize that the path to a legislative deal runs through Democrats who would presumably have some interest in the next step.

6/22/11 10:03 AM EST

5/11/11 10:40 AM EST

Ed Morrissey stands up for the native-born after Obama's line yesterday: "Look at Intel and Google and Yahoo and eBay – these are great American companies that have created countless jobs and helped us lead the world in high-tech industries. Every one was founded by an immigrant...."

Intel was founded by Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce in 1968, neither of whom was an immigrant … unless Obama thinks San Francisco and Burlington, Iowa are in foreign countries. (Some conservatives might be tempted to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on San Francisco.) In fact, Noyce is descended from passengers on the Mayflower, which is about as non-immigrant as one gets without being a Native American.

UPDATE: Obama seems to have been referring to the Hungarian-born Andy Grove, who is often described as an Intel founder and later ran the company. Intel's website says: "Intel was founded in 1968 by Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce, with Andy Grove joining them immediately thereafter."

5/10/11 4:13 PM EST

Obama finds some common ground in his immigration speech:

One CEO has this to say about reform, ‘American ingenuity is a product of the openness and diversity of the society. Immigrants have made America great, as the world leader in business and science, higher education and innovation.’ You know who that leader was? Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News, and is an immigrant himself. I don’t know if you’re familiar with Rupert Murdoch’s views, but let’s just say he doesn’t have an Obama sticker on his car. But he agrees with me on this. So there’s a consensus around fixing what’s broken, and now we need Congress to catch up. Now we need to come together around reform that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.

3/17/11 4:09 PM EST

Impatient immigration advocates typically view the Obama Administration as an ally, but a key force in the debate, the Service Employees International Union, is openly criticizing the Department of Homeland Security's shift in enforcement efforts for the first time.

The Obama Administration has shifted the emphasis of enforcement away from workplace raids -- which immigrant advocates had long described as punishing immigrant workers instead of their employers -- and toward so-called "I-9 audits," in which federal agents ask companies to verify their employees' legal status.

Groups pushing to legalize most immigrant workers are broadly uncomfortable with the audits, which often cost workers their jobs, but have largely avoided criticizing the Administration publicly. But SEIU has seen hundreds of members lose their jobs after I-9 audits: According to the union, 1,200 SEIU janitors in Minneapolis were fired following an I-9 audit last December, and just this week, 250 SEIU janitors in Minneapolis were fired after an I-9 audit, adding to 500 in the area who were fired from Chipotle after the company was examined by the feds.

The president of SEIU's Minnesota Local 26, Javier Morillo, says in an emailed statement:

Under the leadership of Secretary Napolitano the federal government has become an employment agency for the country’s worst employers. With each I-9 audit, the government is systematically pushing hardworking people into the underground economy where they face exploitation. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reports targeting egregious employers that exploit workers – but it’s become increasingly obvious that this policy is nothing short of lip service. Let’s be clear: I-9 audits, by definition, do not go after egregious employers who break immigration laws because many of them do not use I-9 forms. Human traffickers do not ask their victims for their social security cards.

Secretary Napolitano, Director Morton and the agencies they represent are at the forefront of a damaging policy shift in this country – one in which good, hardworking people are hand-delivered to the underground economy. SEIU fights for economic justice across this country, and we can no longer sit silently while communities are devastated by reckless policies.

3/16/11 3:54 PM EST

The LDS Church stepped from the sidelines on immigration reform and squarely onto the playing field Tuesday by sending Presiding Bishop H. David Burton to attend and speak at Gov. Gary Herbert’s signing ceremony for four bills passed by the Utah Legislature.

“Our presence here testifies to the fact that we are appreciative of what has happened in the Legislature this session,” Burton said at the signing, indicating it was no accident or private decision. “We feel the Legislature has done an incredible job on a very complex issue.”

...Burton’s presence was an extraordinarily public endorsement for the LDS Church, which typically prefers to work in the background. And it has supporters and critics from within the faith scrambling to know how to react.

...If the Utah Legislature had been in session right after Arizona passed its stringent immigration law, the Beehive State “likely would have gotten the same thing,” said Paul Mero, president of the conservative Sutherland Institute.

But with LDS Church support for immigration reform, Mero said, “We’ve had a 180[-degree] turn in this state. Culturally, more and more folks understand how reasonable comprehensive reform is compared to enforcement only.”

2/15/11 9:25 AM EST

A tough, Arizona-style anti-immigration bill in the Indiana state Legislature has put Gov. Mitch Daniels — who is mum on whether he backs it — on a collision course with tea party activists who see it as a big priority and could have national implications for the Indiana governor in a GOP presidential primary.

Daniels, who’s mulling a White House run in 2012 and won rave reviews for his CPAC speech last weekend, has yet to take a stand on legislation introduced by State Sen. Mike Delph that died under Democratic-controlled Legislatures in each of the last several years — but faces greatly improved odds of passing this time around.

The latest version of the measure creates tough enforcement provisions, requiring cops to ask for proof of immigration status if they have “reasonable” suspicion about someone they’ve stopped for an unrelated issue — like blowing a traffic light. It also creates strict penalties for employers of illegals.

And this year, the Indiana House of Representatives came under GOP control after a 2010 election shift — upping the chances that the legislation will pass and that Daniels, who’s made his reputation as a fiscal conservative, will end up having to take a stand on the thorny social issue.

Already, tea party activists — who are expected to be influential in the Republican primary process - are demanding Daniels show his cards and come out in support of the bill.

"Frankly, I think it separates him, the men from the boys, on whether he's going to make a stand on something that's important," said Lisa Deaton, founder of the tea party group We The People Indiana, who supports the measure known as SB 590.

"I believe [Daniels] should step up to the plate and say what he really believes. ... I think he needs to hold everyone to the law equally, there cannot be picking and choosing. I would expect him as governor or president to do exactly that."

Delph told POLITICO he hasn’t spoken to Daniels about the bill, but said, “Leadership requires decision-making. ... I think we have a real problem in the state of Indiana. Indiana has become a sanctuary state with regards to immigration.”

Grassroots suspicion for Daniels, though, is matched by admiration from opinion leaders like National Review's Rich Lowry, whose editorial today makes the case for Daniels as adult.

2/7/11 2:42 PM EST

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have rekindled their alliance on immigration reform, taking some early steps to test the political will for addressing the contentious issue this year.

Their call list hasn’t focused so much on House and Senate members who’ve been reliable pro-immigration votes in the past. Instead, they’re looking to a strange-bedfellows mix of conservative and liberal constituencies that can provide a “safety net” of support, as Graham put it, once the issue heats up.

“It’s in the infant stage,” Graham told POLITICO. “I don’t know what the political appetite is to do something.”

For all the groups getting a call from the pair, it is the presence of Graham himself who elevates the odds — however bleak — that the Senate could move on a comprehensive, bipartisan overhaul bill. Graham abruptly departed the talks last spring and took with him any hope of getting a bill in the past Congress.

Now, conservative evangelicals, the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union, business organizations and immigrant advocacy groups say they have gotten word from Schumer’s office that a renewed effort is under way. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce confirmed that it is back in the mix, after a hasty exit last year when Schumer proposed a legislative framework with a temporary worker program that favored labor unions.

And Schumer and his staff have quietly begun reaching out to some unlikely players in the Senate, including Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who has professed a newfound freedom since winning reelection last year without the Republican Party’s help.

12/24/10 1:59 PM EST

If conservatives expected Republican Rep. Lamar Smith to champion the most controversial anti-immigration measures when he takes control of the House Judiciary Committee next month, they’re in for a surprise.

After weeks of speculation that he would pursue a scorched-earth immigration agenda, Smith detailed his to-do list for the first time in an interview with POLITICO — and it’s an early but important signal that the new House Republican majority plans to attack the issue of immigration through the prism of jobs, rather than red meat for the base.

Smith’s first two hearings will focus on expanding E-Verify, a voluntary electronic system for checking the immigration status of workers that President Barack Obama supports and scrutinizing the administration’s record on worksite enforcement.

“They are what I call 70 percent issues — 70 percent or more of the American people support those efforts,” Smith said. “I think they are popular across the board, and I think they will be appreciated by all American workers regardless of their ethnicity or background or anything else.”

10/25/10 12:15 PM EST

Univision sends over a telling transcript of today's "Piolin" interview:

Eddie "Piolin" Sotelo: I know you are a man that keeps the promise and you make it happen, so we're gonna start, Mr. President. I'm gonna give you the option, you know, which topic would you like me to begin with.

Sotelo repeatedly stresses Hispanic voters' disappointment, and the only answer Obama can give is a deeply unconvincing one: That they should vote against Republicans in the hope that Democratic majorities will somehow do what larger ones haven't:

EPS: But how can you ask for their vote now… if, like… most of my listeners, that's what they see … that you haven't worked that hard to make comprehensive immigration reform now.

POTUS: Piolín, I completely disagree with you on this. With all due respect, even though I'm in your studio. The notion that we haven't worked it hard is just not true. There is a notion that somehow if I had worked it hard enough, we could have magically done it. That's just not the way our system works. If I need 60 votes to get this done, then I'm gonna have to have some support from the other side. If the Latino community decides to sit out this election, then there will be fewer votes and it will be less likely to get done. And the other side, which is fighting against this, is not gonna support it, so look, let me say this as an African American. We worked for decades on civil rights. Civil rights didn't come after one year. It didn't come after two years. People had to march, they had to have their heads beaten, they had fire hoses put on them. Even after Dr. King gave his I Have a Dream Speech, it still took years before African Americans achieved full citizenship in this country. Change isn't easy. It doesn't happen overnight. Now, you know, for us to say, oh, it didn't happen right away and so we're just giving up and we're not gonna be involved in the system, that makes no sense. That's not the history of this country. That's not the history of change in our own lives. All of us, you included Piolín, have gone through hardships, you've had your struggles and what happens is, is that you keep on working and you keep on working and you keep on working and finally, eventually you make a breakthrough and you get things done. That's how change happens for us personally, that's how change happens in the country, so instead of us giving up, we just have to keep working until it gets done.

EPS: Well, yeah, we're gonna keep working.

POTUS: Absolutely.

EPS: But I would like to find out the steps that we need to take, Mr. President, so we can help you to make this happen.

POTUS: Look, the steps are very clear. Pressure has to be put on the Republican Party.

EPS: How?

POTUS: Well, let me give you a very specific example. Right now, Nevada, you've got a majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, who's running against a woman named Sharron Angle who is completely opposed to comprehensive immigration reform. ....I mean, the -- there is no place in the country where the Latino vote doesn't matter and even if Latinos are gonna support Republicans, they should say to the Republican candidate, the price of our support is you publically saying that you're gonna support comprehensive immigration reform because I've already said that, Harry Reid has already said that, Democrats are already on record as saying it. If I can get the votes, I'd sign the bill tomorrow. So you have to put the same pressure on those who have not yet been willing to publically commit to comprehensive immigration reform and if they don't publically commit, then you've gotta vote against them.

This isn't to say that there was an easy answer, or any answer, to that question.

10/5/10 12:54 PM EST

A Pew survey released Tuesday found Latino voters holding strong in their preference for Democrats but unenthusiastic about going to the polls. Notably, the Hispanic electorate ranked the immigration debate as relatively low in importance, but voters who had discussed the issue over the past year indicated a greater likeliness to turn out in November:

When Arizona enacted an unauthorized immigrant enforcement bill earlier this year, the immigration policy debate reignited across the country. Even so, the new survey shows that immigration does not rank as a top voting issue for Hispanics. Rather, they rank education, jobs and health care as their top three issues of concern for this year's congressional campaign. Immigration ranks as the fifth most important issue for Latino registered voters and as the fourth most important issue for all Latinos.

However, the survey finds that two-thirds (66%) of Latino registered voters say they talked about the immigration policy debate with someone they know in the past year. It also finds that those who have had these conversations are more motivated to vote in the upcoming election than are those who haven't. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) Latino registered voters who have discussed the immigration debate say they are absolutely certain they will vote in November, compared with just four-in-ten (39%) of those who have not talked about the immigration debate.

Those numbers appear to suggest that high-profile clashes over illegal immigration are likely to fuel Latino turnout to the benefit of Dems.

10/5/10 10:49 AM EST

A reader sends on this interesting story from the Globe & Mail on the success the Canadian Conservative Party has had at recasting itself as a multi-cultural outfit, connecting with the social conservatism of immigrants, and generally doing what George W. Bush's GOP tried, before being undone by the immigration wars of 2005 and 2006:

A tectonic shift is reshaping Canada’s political landscape. A new immigrant-friendly Conservative message and a new, more conservative immigrant are finding each other, shaking the once-ironclad bond between new Canadians and the Liberal Party. Whether the Conservatives can continue to exploit this shift, or the Liberals can arrest it, will determine the fate of the two political parties in this decade.

On a deeper level, the effectiveness of these wedge issues raises the possibility that immigration, and the importation of more traditional homeland values, is shifting Canadian attitudes.

Not having a border with Mexico, obviously, is making this quite a bit easier for the Tories than it has been for the Republcans.